Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31   ^
Old Sat, Jan-17-04, 22:23
Grimalkin's Avatar
Grimalkin Grimalkin is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 741
 
Plan: PP
Stats: 160/149/125 Female 66 in.
BF:
Progress: 31%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ICountToo
Anybody seen anything new about how they expect us to break stalls?


Um, what do you bet they'll tell you to just "to eat fewer calories and exercise more"?
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32   ^
Old Sat, Jan-17-04, 22:23
katwoman's Avatar
katwoman katwoman is offline
Living Healthy
Posts: 10,968
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 281.4/239.4/145 Female 5'4"
BF:imp/rov/ing
Progress: 31%
Location: Oklahoma
Default

I'm not changing anything regardless of new rules. I believe in this plan, as written by Dr. A.
Reply With Quote
  #33   ^
Old Sat, Jan-17-04, 22:26
mle_ii's Avatar
mle_ii mle_ii is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 427
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: // Male 69 inches
BF:27%/21%/15%
Progress: -27977%
Location: Redmond, WA
Default

I plan on sticking with what Atkins last wrote. That is unless there is a substantial amount of evidence saying that eating Sat fat while eating low carb is bad.

I think that it is a shame if the Atkins company has caved in to those who have no real evidence to back their claims up and changed the diet for financial reasons and not health reasons. Though they might make money on this in the short term in the long term they will lose out.

This will, I believe, cause those who have used Dr Atkins diet in its current form to not support Atkins Nutritionals any more. As others have said they have gone down the bad path with their sale of frakinfoods and this will cast even more bad light on the company.

They had better come out with the study that demonstrates the reason why they changed the diet, otherwise I will no longer support their company in any way, shape or form.
Reply With Quote
  #34   ^
Old Sat, Jan-17-04, 22:48
MayMay MayMay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 161
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 272/226/150 Female 5'6"
BF:Way too much!!
Progress: 38%
Location: Southern Louisiana
Default

And I thought I was confused b4??????? All I DO know is that EVERYTHING I tried b4, and I've tried them all, DID NOT WORK. THIS DOES, whether it has the Atkins name on it or not, IT WORKS!!!!!!, SO, I will continue. If I keep the weight on, I die. If I find a way to take it off, maybe, just maybe, I'll be around a little longer. If not, then I won't have to worry about the weight issue any longer. Hang in there troops. They just have so many famous folks loosing on South Beach, they want to compete. It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$
Reply With Quote
  #35   ^
Old Sat, Jan-17-04, 23:12
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is online now
Experimenter
Posts: 45,308
 
Plan: Paleo 99.5%
Stats: 210/170/160 Female 67.5"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Also point out that plant based saturated fats might in fact be very healthful. Drop the word "medium chain triglycerides" and that'll probably stop any further debate.

http://www.westonaprice.org/know_yo...oconut_oil.html

Quote:
What are some of the contradictions to the hypothesis blaming saturated fat?
Recently, an editorial by Harvard's Walter Willett, M.D. in the American Journal of Public Health (1990) acknowledged that even though


"the focus of dietary recommendations is usually a reduction of saturated fat intake, no relation between saturated fat intake and risk of CHD was observed in the most informative prospective study to date."

Another editorial, this time by Framingham's William P. Castelli in the Archives of Internal Medicine (1992), declared for the record that

"...in Framingham, Mass, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's serum cholesterol... the opposite of what the equations provided by Hegsted at al (1965) and Keys et al (1957) would predict..."
Castelli further admitted that

"...In Framingham, for example, we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least, and were the most physically active."
Reply With Quote
  #36   ^
Old Sat, Jan-17-04, 23:34
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is online now
Experimenter
Posts: 45,308
 
Plan: Paleo 99.5%
Stats: 210/170/160 Female 67.5"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Oh wow! I happened to buy a jar of coconut oil on a whim, then I looked up coconut oil to see why this oil was supposed to be good (it's about 100% saturated fats) and finding a lot of stuff about it. I'm thinking the saturated fat thing is another example of junk science.

Here's an excerpt, which slams CSPI
http://www.apcc.org.sg/special.htm
Quote:
III. ORIGINS OF THE ANTI-SATURATED FAT AGENDA
The coconut industry has suffered more than three decades of abusive rhetoric from the consumer activist group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), from the American Soybean Association (ASA) and other members of the edible oil industry, and from those in the medical and scientific community who learned their misinformation from groups like CSPI and ASA. I would like to review briefly the origins of the anti-saturated fat, anti-tropical oil campaigns and hopefully give you some useful insight into the issues.
When and how did the anti-saturated fat story begin? It really began in part in the late 1950s, when a researcher in Minnesota announced that the heart disease epidemic was being caused by hydrogenated vegetable fats. The edible oil industry's response at that time was to claim it was only the saturated fat in the hydrogenated oils that was causing the problem. The industry then announced that it would be changing to partially hydrogenated fats and that this would solve the problem.
In actual fact, there was no change because the oils were already being partially hydrogenated, and the levels of saturated fatty acids remained similar, as did the levels of the trans fatty acids. The only thing that really changed was the term for hydrogenation or hardening listed on the food label.
During this same period, a researcher in Philadelphia reported that consuming polyunsaturated fatty acids lowered serum cholesterol. This researcher, however, neglected to include the information that the lowering was due to the cholesterol going into the tissues, such as the liver and the arteries. As a result of this research report and the acceptance of this new agenda by the domestic edible oils industries, there was a gradual increase in the emphasis on replacing "saturated fats" in the diet and on the consuming of larger amounts of the "polyunsaturated fats." As many of you probably know, this strong emphasis on consuming polyunsaturates has backfired in many ways: the current adjustments being recommended in the U.S. by groups such as the National Academy of Sciences replace the saturates with monounsaturates instead of with polyunsaturates and replace polyunsaturates with monounsaturates.
Early promoters of the anti-saturated fat ideas included companies such as Corn Products Company (CPC International) through a book written by Jeremiah Stamler in 1963, with the professional edition published in 1966 by CPC. This book took some of the earliest pejorative stabs at the tropical oils. In 1963, the only tropical fat or oil singled out as high in saturated fats was coconut oil. Palm oil had not entered the U.S. food supply to any extent, had not become a commercial threat to the domestic oils, and was not recognized in any of the early texts. An observation by the editorial staff of Consumer Reports noted that

"...in 1962...one writer observed, the average American now fears fat (saturated fat, that is) 'as he once feared witches.'"
In 1965, a representative of Procter and Gamble told the American Heart Association to change its Diet/Heart statement, removing any reference to the trans fatty acids. This altered official document encouraged the consumption of partially hydrogenated fats. In the 1970s, this same Procter and Gamble employee served as nutrition chairman in two controlling positions for the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute's Lipid Research Clinic (LRC) trials and as director of one of the LRC centers. These LRC trials were the basis for the 1984 NIH Cholesterol Consensus Conference, which in turn spawned the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP). This program encourages consumption of margarine and partially hydrogenated fats, while admitting that trans should not be consumed in excess. The official NCEP document states that "...coconut oil, palm oil, and palm kernel oil...should be avoided..."
In 1966, the U.S. Department of Agriculture documents on fats and oils talked about how unstable the unsaturated fats and oils were. There was no criticism of the saturated fats. That criticism of saturated fat was to come later to this agency when it came under the influence of the domestic edible fats and oils industry, and when it developed the U.S. Dietary Guidelines. These Dietary Guidelines became very anti-saturated fat and remain so to this day. Nevertheless, as we will learn later in my talk, there has started some reversal of the anti-saturated fat stance in the works in this agency in 1998.
In the early 1970s, although a number of researchers were voicing concerns about the trans fats, the edible oil industry and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were engaging in a revolving-door exchange that would (i) promote the increasing consumption of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, (ii) would condemn the saturated fats, and (iii) hide the trans issue. As an example of this "oily" exchange, in 1971 the FDA's general counsel became president of the edible oil trade association, and he in turn was replaced at the FDA by a food lawyer who had represented the edible oil industry.
From that point on, the truth about any real effects of the dietary fats had to play catch-up. The American edible oil industry sponsored "information" to educate the public, and the natural dairy and animal fats industries were inept at countering any of that misinformation. Not being domestically grown in the U.S., coconut oil, palm oil, and palm kernel oil were not around to defend themselves at that time. The government agencies responsible for disseminating information ignored those protesting "lone voices," and by the mid-1980s, American food manufacturers and consumers had made major changes in their fats and oils usage -- away from the safe saturated fats and headlong into the problematic trans fats.
Enig and Fallon (1998/1999) have reviewed the above history in "The Oiling of America" published in the Australian magazine Nexus. The magazine has placed this review on the internet and it can be viewed or downloaded from the Nexus website. The internet addresses for the websites are http://www.peg.apc.org/~nexus/OilingAmerica.1.html and http://www.peg.apc.org/~nexus/OilingAmerica.2.html


Harrumph! It gets worse:

Quote:
VII. COMPARISON OF SATURATED FATS WITH THE TRANS FATS
The statement that trans fatty acids are like saturated fatty acids is not correct for biological systems. A listing of the biological effects of saturated fatty acids in the diet versus the biological effects of trans fatty acids in the diet is in actuality a listing of the good (saturated) versus the bad (trans).
When one compares the saturated fatty acids and the trans fatty acids, we see that
(1) saturated fatty acids raise HDL cholesterol, the so-called good cholesterol, whereas the trans fatty acids lower HDL cholesterol (Mensink and Katan 1990, Judd et al 1994);
(2) saturated fatty acids lower the blood levels of the atherogenic lipoprotein [a], whereas trans fatty acids raise the blood levels of lipoprotein [a] (Khosla and Hayes 1996, Hornstra et al 1991, Clevidence et al 1997);
(3) saturated fatty acids conserve the elongated omega-3 fatty acids (Gerster 1998), whereas trans fatty acids cause the tissues to lose these omega-3 fatty acids (Sugano and Ikeda 1996);
(4) saturated fatty acids do not inhibit insulin binding, whereas trans fatty acids do inhibit insulin binding;
(5) saturated fatty acids are the normal fatty acids made by the body, and they do not interfere with enzyme functions such as the delta-6-desaturase, whereas trans fatty acids are not made by the body, and they interfere with many enzyme functions such as delta-6-desaturase;
and
(6) some saturated fatty acids are used by the body to fight viruses, bacteria, and protozoa, and they support the immune system, whereas trans fatty acids interfere with the function of the immune system.



My thought at this point is people are trying to manipulate the food industry and government to force us to eat what is most profitable to them. So my gut instinct is to disbelieve everyone until there are better studies done that aren't sponsered by industry.

So... I eat what I think is right: A mixture of fats that I think are healthful and tasty. That includes lots of saturated fats, coconut oil, butter and try to get omega's in my diet too. It's sort of like praying to all the gods and hoping that one of them is listening.

Last edited by Nancy LC : Sat, Jan-17-04 at 23:44.
Reply With Quote
  #37   ^
Old Sun, Jan-18-04, 00:31
Grimalkin's Avatar
Grimalkin Grimalkin is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 741
 
Plan: PP
Stats: 160/149/125 Female 66 in.
BF:
Progress: 31%
Default

I agree: it's all about profit and the bottom line, marketing a diet as you would an article of clothing to the public. Throw away the science and make it fashionable so it sells!

As for the science, combine the above two articles with the one Gotbeer posted about peer review and all you have left is a lot of junk. It makes perfect sense in a way: eating cheap foods profits many food industries, and the resulting diseases profit the pharmaceutical industries. I believe they care nothing for our health. They also represent a major source of funding for the sorts of studies that villify or vindicate saturated fats; the results tend to be predictable.
Reply With Quote
  #38   ^
Old Sun, Jan-18-04, 01:24
CindySue48's Avatar
CindySue48 CindySue48 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,816
 
Plan: Atkins/Protein Power
Stats: 256/179/160 Female 68 inches
BF:38.9/27.2/24.3
Progress: 80%
Location: Triangle NC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by katwoman
I'm not changing anything regardless of new rules. I believe in this plan, as written by Dr. A.


You got that right!
Reply With Quote
  #39   ^
Old Sun, Jan-18-04, 01:29
Turtle2003's Avatar
Turtle2003 Turtle2003 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,449
 
Plan: Atkins, Newcastle
Stats: 260/221.8/165 Female 5'3"
BF:Highest weight 260
Progress: 40%
Location: Northern California
Default

He must be spinning in his grave.
Reply With Quote
  #40   ^
Old Sun, Jan-18-04, 01:51
daninmidmo daninmidmo is offline
New Member
Posts: 23
 
Plan: Caveman/Mercola
Stats: 228/176/160 Male 5'11
BF:
Progress: 76%
Location: Columbia, MO
Default

From a paleo viewpoint, if you get grass fed (and grass finished) meat and dairy, it should be 100% healthy to eat it all. There are studies that the sat fat from grain feeding (known as the secondhand carb effect) causes problems, not animals fed as by nature they would eat.

I use unhydrogenated coconut oil for cooking and olive oil for cold uses. The coconut oil does not break down on heating like other high omega 3 oils. (olive oil breaks down when heated)

-my info is from www.mercola.com

Last edited by daninmidmo : Sun, Jan-18-04 at 01:54.
Reply With Quote
  #41   ^
Old Sun, Jan-18-04, 01:52
daninmidmo daninmidmo is offline
New Member
Posts: 23
 
Plan: Caveman/Mercola
Stats: 228/176/160 Male 5'11
BF:
Progress: 76%
Location: Columbia, MO
Default

Reply With Quote
  #42   ^
Old Sun, Jan-18-04, 02:08
catfishghj's Avatar
catfishghj catfishghj is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 428
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 330/217/190 Male 70 in
BF:?/30/less than 20
Progress: 81%
Location: Tucson, AZ
Default

The saturated fats are great for your health. What is not good for you are all the soy based products that Adkins sells.
Reply With Quote
  #43   ^
Old Sun, Jan-18-04, 05:30
lasert's Avatar
lasert lasert is offline
Renaissance Man
Posts: 640
 
Plan: Dr. Atkins
Stats: 298/197.5/185 Male 66 inches
BF:26.08
Progress: 89%
Location: Windsor, Ct.
Default Revised thinking?

Nah..........more marketing strategies.
Just like the foolishness with the Atkins nutritional bars where today's bar has a huge label (Net 3 Carbs) on the front but the ingredient label on the back shows the 20+ carbs that Dr. Atkins originally said were to be avoided.
Frankly, this stuff sickens me. The way a corporation greedily changes stride in mid-race in order to jump on or off another bandwagon based on what they are selling or trying to sell.
At some point there will probably be an Enron-type scandal to boot because the bean counters are once again out in full force.
What matters to me is I am losing weight fairly steadily and feel better than I have in years..........plus whatever downside there may be to this diet will take more years to show up than I plan to be on this planet since I am already 63.

Last edited by lasert : Sun, Jan-18-04 at 13:22.
Reply With Quote
  #44   ^
Old Sun, Jan-18-04, 05:52
RCFletcher's Avatar
RCFletcher RCFletcher is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 5,989
 
Plan: Food Combining
Stats: 220/175/154 Male 5feet5inches
BF:?/27.5%/19.6%
Progress: 68%
Location: Newcastle UK
Default

The mercola site was interesting I couldn't find the reference to saturated fats??
Reply With Quote
  #45   ^
Old Sun, Jan-18-04, 07:45
K Walt K Walt is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 606
 
Plan: PP
Stats: 210/170/170
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: NJ
Default

If Atkins (the faceless corporation, at least) wants to be politically correct about sat fats, they'll need to delete or ignore a LOT of research posted on their site.

Go to the Atkins site (atkins.com) and enter 'Saturated Fat' in their search box.

You'll get a looong list of summaries of scientific papers very positive (or at least neutral) about sat fats. . . . Increase HDL, make LDL more buoyant (less harmful), improve glucose levels compared to monos, NO adverse effect on lipids, NO relation to breast cancer, improved glycemic control in diabetics. . . on and on.

I guess they now have to pretend this science doesn't exist, just like the mainstream nutritionists do.

Too bad.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Weight debate pits good fat vs. bad fat tamarian LC Research/Media 3 Mon, Jan-20-03 12:44
The low fat/low cholesterol diet is ineffective--European Heart Journal Voyajer LC Research/Media 1 Mon, Aug-19-02 14:23
Current and Potential Drugs for Treatment of Obesity-Endocrine Reviews Voyajer LC Research/Media 0 Mon, Jul-15-02 18:57
Low fat myth exposed Jilly LC Research/Media 21 Mon, May-20-02 03:34


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 13:26.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.